Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council deciding to grant planning permission for development next to the complainant’s home. The complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is nothing to suggest fault affected the Council’s decision. Delay in responding to the complainant did not cause him injustice that justifies our involvement.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr Y, complained about how the Council decided to grant planning permission for development next to his home. He also says the Council did not meet its own targets to respond to his complaints following the decision.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’.
3. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if, for example, we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault;
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

4. We do not provide a right of appeal against a council’s decision on a planning application. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached that is likely to have affected the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr Y which included the Council’s responses to his concerns. I have also seen information on the Council’s website. I considered our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council received a planning application for development next to Mr Y’s home. It had to consider the planning merits of the application and grant planning permission if there were no valid grounds for refusal.
7. The Council publicised the application and Mr Y sent his comments on it. A planning officer set out the planning issues in a report which addressed the issues Mr Y had raised. The Council decided there were no valid grounds to refuse the application and so granted planning permission.
8. Mr Y complained about the decision to the Council. It did not respond within its stated timescales and apologised for this. However, I consider the Council’s responses fully addressed Mr Y’s concerns about how it decided to grant planning permission.

Back to top

Final decision

9. I have decided we will not investigate this complaint. While I recognise Mr Y disagrees with the Council’s decision, we do not provide a right of appeal against it. I have seen nothing to suggest fault in how the Council considered the planning application that is likely to have affected the outcome. Further, I do not consider the delay in dealing with Mr Y’s complains caused him injustice that warrants our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman